1EL DIA DE LOS MUERTOS: THE

DEATH AND REBIRTH OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL

MOVEMENT.

By Eileen Gauna

3

A spirit for environmental justice is essential to living in a moral

society and should be on the minds of the students who come to

St.Edward’s. The pairing of this article with imagry from East

Austin culture in this book is intended to introduce the subject of

environmental justice here in the Austin community.

Foreward

5

PODER (People Organized in Defense of Earth and Her Resources) donates their extensive organizational archives collection to the Austin History Center. Founded in 1991 by a group of Chicana/o East Austin activists and community leaders, PODER seeks to redefine environmental, economic and social injustices in Austin through grassroots participation.

The PODER collection will be a gold mine for future researchers and activist. PODER represents the epitome of community organization and activism, and the work they have done, as documented in the archives, is not only important to East Austin and Austin in general, but speaks to larger issues, such as gentrification and youth organizing, that affect cities across the country. The collection consists of correspondence and administrative records, video and audio recordings, radio programs, oral history interviews, and other important documentation relating to PODER and their mission dating from 1991 to 2011, including information relating to the shut down of the Tank Farm, the close down of the Holly Power Plant, the BFI Recycling Center relocation and other environmental accomplishments.

PODER donates their organizational archives to the Austin History Center

meet PODER

17

MISSION

Our mission is redefining environmental issues as social and economic justice issues, and collectively setting our own agenda to address these concerns as basic human rights. We seek to empower our communities through education, advocacy and action. Our aim is to increase the participation of communities of color in corporate and government decision making related to toxic pollution, economic development and their impact on our neighborhoods.

For more information about this donation please call (512) 974-7498 or visit www.austintexas.gov/library!

EL DIA DE LOS MUERTOS: THE DEATH AND REBIRTH OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT.

By Eileen Gauna

Environmental Law (00462276)Spring 2008, Vol. 38 Issue 2, p457-472, 18p

11

In the wake of the 2004 Death of Environmentalism article — a

controversial piece that questioned the capacity of the environmental

movement to adequately respond to climate change-environmental

justice actors raised several important questions in the wake of what

came to be called the "death of environmentalism debates." This

Article examines the issues raised by environmental justice actors and

how the larger environmental community can learn valuable lessons

from the experience of the environmental justice movement.

Abstract

12 13

Contents

I Introduction

II The Debate Sparked by the Death of Environmentalism

III Areas for Further Analysis

IV Conclusion

Works Cited

13

21

39

71

79

15

Introduction

I

17

In Latino traditions, there is a day called “el dia de

los muertos” or the day of the dead.1 The artwork

commemorating this day best illustrates its mood,

featuring whimsical skeletons in brightly colored

clothes, typically dancing, singing, playing music,

and otherwise celebrating. The message is clear: don’t take

death -or yourself-too seriously. After all, death is part of

life. The environmental community might want to similarly

leave aside the more somber approach to its supposed

death,2 and look at its potential from a broader perspective.

In the fall of 2004, environmental consultants Michael

Shellenberger and Ted Norhaus, in an article proclaiming the

“death of environmentalism,” started a debate about whether

the environmental movement, as known and understood

in more conventional U.S. circles, is a failed strategy and

should be pronounced dead.3 They suggested that as it

currently exists, environmentalism is structurally incapable

of adequately addressing the most serious environmental

issue to confront humankind-global climate change.4 The

article sparked a vigorous debate within the environmental

community. While the controversy has long since subsided,

the arc of this article and various responses to it is telling

and merits further reflection. There were several interesting

I

19

aspects of this debate. For example, it raised questions about

who exactly is the environmental community, what are “its”

strategies, are they successful, and where do we go from

here? Issues of race, class, and equity came to the surface.

This Article examines some of the strands of this debate and

how environmental justice actors fit within the project of a

successful response to climate disruption.5 It is important

to keep this issue in mind as the adverse effects of climate

change-while uncertain in severity, timing, and precise

location-will not be distributed evenhandedly.6 Anticipating

significant harm to natural resources and adverse health

effects (such as heat wave related deaths, respiratory illnesses,

vector-related diseases, and injury and death from climate

caused disasters), this unpredictable phenomenon raises

important discussions over how much of our resources should

be devoted to adapting to what is likely to be inevitable, and

how much should be devoted to an attempt to change the

trajectory of climate disruption by decreasing greenhouse gas

emissions. Who gets to decide this, and by what processes?

Will those most impacted have a meaningful say in the

important decisions? This is the largely unarticulated

backdrop to the “death” debates. •

I

121

(Marigolds)

zempasúchitl

Used to attract ancestral souls

23

The Debate Sparked by the Death of

Environmentalism

II

25

Back to the story. The authors of Death of

Environmentalism offered several specific reasons

for their assertion that the environmental

movement had failed. The more central reason was that

“environmentalism” was too narrowly defined to mean a

“thing.”7 As such, the roots of environmental problems were

poorly conceptualized and the solutions-largely within the

technicalities of pollution control and set-asides of pristine

areas-did not animate the deeper values that sustain critical

political support over the long haul.8 Instead of a values-based

strategy, environmentalists opted for an “environmental

protection” frame.9 This was not without good reason. In

the 1970s, conventional environmentalists-with exactly this

frame-helped win the policy battles that ushered in an impressive

regulatory regime.10 However, environmentalists ultimately

became complacent and, according to Shellenberger and

Nordhaus, some perhaps a bit too arrogant.11 The reification

of the environment as a “thing” separate from humans,

a thing protected by an elite group of technocrats, kept

environmentalists busy over the next few decades quibbling

over technical solutions, horse-trading on the Hill, and

otherwise entirely missing the boat.12 They failed to see

the larger political, economic, cultural, and values-based

context that generated environmental problems, and missed

opportunities that could have planted the seeds of more

holistic solutions.13

As one example of this myopia, the authors of Death of

Environmentalism illustrated how environmentalists failed

to consider the concern of industry and unions that the high

cost of health care is the biggest threat to the competitiveness of

the U.S. auto industry.14 Environmentalists therefore failed to

cultivate the necessary alliances to collectively design win-win

II

27

solutions and, as a result, the auto industry and labor unions

dug in their heels, became adversaries, and were ultimately

successful in slowing or halting important initiatives central

to staving off global climate change.15 Helping the auto

industry address the health care issue could have made the

industry and its unions allies on environmental issues-issues

that, ironically, were relatively less important to these powerful

interest groups.16

At the same time that environmentalists were f ighting

the auto industry and its unions, neo-conservatives were

busy cleverly constructing the intellectual framework for

dismantling government, with environmental regulation as

ground zero in this project.17 The Death of Environmentalism

authors suggested that the “environment,” framed as a

thing that had to be saved, did not have a chance when

pitted against the right’s strategists,18 and against their

intellectual brainchild of decades of think-tank incubation:

an individualistic, market-captivated agenda of “smaller

government, fewer taxes, a large military, traditional

families, and more power for big business.”19 In short,

modern environmentalism is not capable of prompting the

reform needed to adequately address climate change and

should be pronounced dead.20 Or so the argument goes, as put

forth by Death of Environmentalism’s authors.

II

29

The executive director of the Sierra Club, Carl Pope,

responded to the Death of Environmentalism critique in an

equally vigorous manner. While agreeing with Shellenberger

and Nordhaus that progressive movements generally, and

environmentalists in particular, have inadequately mobilized

the public by failing to present a more coherent vision, he

believed the authors’ analysis overlooked, simplified, and

downright misrepresented.21 First, he noted that the article

was based on interviews with a relatively small group of the

movement’s more technically-oriented leaders (including Carl

Pope himself ).22 Contrary to the Death of Environmentalism

authors’ characterizations, Pope argued, these environmental

leaders do not blindly believe that the handful of technical

solutions they proposed, such as hybrid cars and efficient

light bulbs, will alone halt or reverse climate change.23 He

pointed out that the article also glossed over the fact that

conventional organizations, like the Sierra Club, had for

years pursued alliances with labor unions and other interest groups.24

Equally important is that Shellenberger and Nordhaus failed

to mention that other strands of the larger environmental

movement-such as sustainability, deep ecology, and the

environmental justice movements-do not necessarily accept

the assumptions of the “environmental protection” frame

as described by the authors.25 But the perspectives of these

groups were not included in the report. As Carl Pope noted,

Shellenberger and Nordhaus seemed to define the entire

environmental movement as the 25 people they interviewed,26

along with a few conventionally recognized fathers of the

environmental movement, such as John Muir. After defining

history and the movement narrowly, the authors proceeded

to attack it as being too narrow. Equally problematic is that

within their critique, they failed to recognize that global

warming is a very different kind of environmental problem.

At least at the time of the Death of Environmentalism

article, climate change was viewed by many as a more

remote and abstract problem.27 In addition, because of the

scale of the problem the solution will necessarily demand a

reorientation of basic values and an economic transformation

of unprecedented scale; these are important reasons, by the

way, why there has been a disappointing lack of progress on

this front, despite the record of progress on more concrete and

immediate environmental issues.28

Environmental justice advocates also weighed in on the debate.

In a response titled The Soul of Environmentalism, a group

of activists and scholars first set out to correct Shellenberger

and Nordhaus’ rendition of the history of the environmental

movement.29 They suggested that environmental justice

II

31

advocates had been making similar critiques of the

conventional strand of the U.S. environmental movement for

decades, questioning its narrow focus on technical fixes, its

failure to provide a coherent political analysis that provided

adequate linkage to economic and social justice, and its

inability to form respectful alliances with other progressive

movements and environmentally impacted communities.30

The Soul of Environmentalism also contained a political

analysis of why the efficacy of progressive movements more

generally had waned over the past years.31

The authors of The Soul of Environmentalism also had some

suggestions. Instead of being obsessed with narrowly defined

problems and technical solutions, they argued, we need to

take time to identify the big fights and the crucial intersections

in progressive politics that will allow us to come together in

new ways.32 Some of the big fights relate to funding the public

sector, land use, human and reproductive rights, the “war on

terror,” and creating wealth for everyone.33 Secondly, they

spoke of the need to go beyond self interest by reinvigorating

the value of community.34 While these environmental justice

activists agreed with Shellenberger and Nordhaus’s call for

a big investment in energy efficiency, they pointed out that

smaller, visionary projects are sprouting up in the grassroots

initiatives of resource poor but spiritually rich communities.35

II

33

These initiatives are infused with the overarching values

of community and sustainability, and as such can be easily

linked to similar international movements.36 Like others,

they called for placing environmental issues in new frames

that animate broader visions and values. For example, a

new energy policy is not just about less carbon dioxide, it is

about “human rights, jobs, security, trade, and economics.”37

Like others, they also endorsed as a priority outreach to

other affected constituencies; pointedly, however, the groups

they identified for outreach were more diverse and included

anti-deficit groups, community development organizations,

labor unions, trade organizations for new industries, and

evangelical communities.38 They also echoed the need for

conventional environmentalists to abandon their isolationist

approach and form transformative alliances with other

progressive movements, exploring commonalities rather than

emphasizing differences.39

The authors of The Soul of Environmentalism went further

than either the authors of The Death of Environmentalism or

the ensuing general consensus with regard to reframing issues

and alliance building. While they agreed that conventional

strategies could be pursued, they argued that there should be

II

35

more investment in smaller organizations, particularly those

at the grass roots.40 They also promoted the idea of leadership

without borders and the need to cultivate younger leaders,

particularly those who skillfully reach across issue lines.4

This sentiment was also expressed by other environmental

justice activists, who suggested that it is not enough for the

elite conventional environmental movement to examine

what they can do differently while maintaining their position

of power. They need to be open to options that require

them to interrogate their own position of privilege and to

share power.42 Others noted that whatever the new frames,

alliances, and strategies, they all needed an adequate race

and class analysis, and must always question who benefits and

who bears the burdens.43 Finally, any political agenda must

speak to the central economic and social needs of vulnerable

communities.44

The Death of Environmentalism article and this

particular strand of its aftermath raised several important

questions. While most agreed that narrowly framed issues

accompanied by overly technical solutions failed to inspire

or provide a coherent vision, this observation alone does

not get us very far. Perhaps the most disappointing omission

of Death of Environmentalism was its failure to analyze

II

37

conventional environmentalism within the context of its sister

environmental movements in particular, and progressive

movements in general. When we broaden the perspective,

what we might be witnessing is not a failed strategy that

should be pronounced dead, but uncoordinated movements

that have not yet offered their strengths to a better, more

coherent approach. The “death” debate itself suggests several

areas where a more expansive analysis of the issues might

prove fruitful. These interrelated areas are the history of

the environmental movement, the conceptualization and

framing of environmental issues, the role of technocratic

solutions, and transformative coalition building.These are

crucial issues with which the environmental justice movement

has been engaged since its inception. This movement’s

encounter with these issues merits revisiting, as some of these

struggles, and the lessons learned, may be used to fashion a

coherent progressive vision and political strategies that can

lead to effective solutions. At the same time, the approach of

more conventional environmentalists also has strengths that

should not be discarded, but instead used to enhance a more

cohesive progressive environmental project.45 •

II

Pollution! 39

Gentrification!

41

Areas For Further Analysis

III

Her name is Death, she can go anywhere.

la Catrina

43

In the history of Austin!

East Side’sRosewood Courts!

The only community

housing!

The authors of The Soul of Environmentalism

noted that the authors of Death of

Environmentalism only cited to three people who

came before: John Muir, David Brower, and Martin Luther

King, Jr.46 While it was appropriate to cite Dr. King, and by

implication acknowledge the strategic and tactical lessons

that were a gift of the civil rights movement, this by itself was

insufficient. The Soul of Environmentalism authors argue

that the successful rebirth of the environmental movement

(indeed, the birth of any movement) depends upon being clear

about lineage and history.47 Critical of John Muir because

of his insensitivity to racial issues, the Soul authors noted

that [t]here are better shoulders for us to stand on. In 1849,

Henry Thoreau explained that he was refusing to pay taxes

to a government ‘which buys and sells men, women, and

children like cattle at the door of its senate-house.’ In 1914,

Louis Marshall made the critical argument that saved the

Adirondack wilderness, despite the fact that he was a Jew

and many of his neighbors in the North Country were rabid

anti-Semites. In the 1930s, Marshall’s son Robert founded the

modern wilderness protection movement. Around the same time,

Zora Neale Hurston documented multiethnic America in her

many books about people and nature. In the 1960s, Henry

Dumas wrote of the healing role of nature in even the most

III

A. The History Of The Environmental Movement Broadly Defined

45

viciously segregated rural areas of the South.48

Undoubtedly there are other historical figures, both

domestically and globally, to include in a larger, shared

history of environmentalism. While redefining history may

seem frivolous to some, particularly given the urgency

of global-scale climate disruption, it is important to keep in

mind that entire groups of people have been all but erased

from history or characterized as trivial. These groups

first needed to reclaim their histories in order to proceed

further in their progressive movements. If the larger

environmental community is going to progress as a cohesive

group, it needs a more inclusive history, acknowledging

its multiethnic, multiracial, and multinational ancestry.

Moreover, the act of redefining and reclaiming history

will help dissolve entrenched privilege and debunk the view

of environmentalism as an elite movement. This in turn

will destabilize the right’s labeling of environmentalists

as “limousine liberals,”49 or with other terms aimed at

undercutting the environmental movement’s legitimacy.

Far from being a frivolous endeavor, a shared history of

environmentalism will help launch an effective reframing project.

III

47

The conventional environmental movement has been

criticized because it reifies the environment, reducing

it to a “thing” to be protected.50 While Carl Pope’s response-

that the environment is a thing and indeed has its dynamics-

is well taken, conceptualizing the environment in this way

seems to lead to single-minded strategies of preserving

pristine places, or of addressing pollution and risk outside of its

economic, social, and cultural context. As a result, the solutions

proposed or endorsed by conventional environmentalists left

vulnerable communities without access to critical natural

resources, and safe jobs and livelihoods.51 Just as importantly,

it left impacted communities without a meaningful say in

decisions that affected their communities.52 In a related vein,

a single-focus can potentially lead to undermining important

principles of sovereignty for Native American tribes.53 In

several instances, the self-determination and agency of people

of color in impacted communities were disregarded while

tradeoffs, made in the name of net environmental benefit, were

brokered by conventional environmental elites.54

B. Conceptualization of the Environment and Framing of Environmental Issues

III

49

My way of life is fading away. Environmental justice activists responded to this situation

by redefining the “environment” as the place where

people live, work, play, learn, and worship.55 Moreover,

the environmental justice movement explicitly linked

environmentalism to economic and social justice.56 This

re-conceptualization enabled consideration of pollution,

risk, and resource use in a broader economic and cultural

context,57 and encouraged alliances, particularly on a more

local level wherecultural practices and livelihoods were

often at stake.

Participants in the “death” conversations often spoke of the need

to think of the environment in different terms, but exactly

what those terms should be unfortunately remained vague.

Equally unfortunate is that the re-conceptualization of the

term “environment” by environmental justice advocates,

while intended to prompt consideration of the environment

in a complex economic, social, political, and cultural

context, might not be sufficient on a global scale. To address

global climate change, the term “environment” might need

to be broadened further still, to include considerations of

climate justice, ecological resources of global significance,

and protection of biodiversity. At the same time, the

conceptualization must have the power to link the serious but

III

51

C o r n !

relatively more remote problem of longer-term distributional

impacts of climate change58 to the more immediate problems

currently facing vulnerable communities, such as natural

resource depletion, pollution, and the lack of access to

emergency response services. For example, the inevitability

of federal legislation regulating greenhouse gases59 appears to

be an important consideration in the surge of new coal-fired

power plants,60 presumably in order to seek grandfather

status under new regulations. There are also other forms

of energy, such as biofuel, liquef ied natural gas, and

nuclear, that are asserted to be “cleaner” from a greenhouse

gas perspective and to promote energy security, but present

their own set of risks and that are likely to exacerbate

racial disparities in the United States.61 A comprehensive

strategy must include a serious response to these and other

distributional impacts.

More broadly, we must find a way to adequately convey that

the environment is more than where we collectively live, work,

play, learn, and worship. It is also one tiny planet and our only

home, a home we share with other sentient beings and with

future generations. The Native American concept of Mother

Earth,62 or the Gaia concept sometimes used by the deep

ecology and other movements,63 may be helpful in this respect.

III

Unfortunately, these nontraditional conceptualizations of the

environment have been characterized as both romantic and

bizarre,64 and the groups that have promoted them have been

marginalized in the larger environmental movement. This

marginalization is itself an assertion of privilege that should

be challenged by all sister progressive movements.

Al Gore’s recent movie,65 which takes the more conventional

but accessible approach of explaining the scientific

underpinnings of climate change, reinserted climate

change issues into the broader public dialogue. With

the help of cognitive scientists like George Lakoff66 and

others, the larger environmental movement could use this

momentum to reshape the public conception of environment

III

and climate change in a way that would animate positive

values of community and fairness on a global scale, instead

of remaining within the more comfortable but overly narrow

scientific and technical approach.

But this approach to reframing also has a dark side. It might

be too tempting to rely solely upon experts to frame issues

for public consumption. Although such an exercise would

be helpful as part of a coordinated strategy, a more useful

approach was used by the environmental justice movement in

the early 1990s. At that time, many people in the movement

came together to collectively draft a set of principles to guide

the constellation of disparate grassroots organizations that

were addressing environmental justice issues across the

55

United States. These principles were worked, and reworked,

in a public forum over a period of days by all the participants

at the 1991 People of Color Environmental Leadership

Summit.67 At the end of the process, the organizations

and individuals involved had a sense of ownership of these

principles and were able to continue their work, individually

and together, with a greater sense of cohesion and optimism.

The broader environmental movement and closely aligned

allies might try a similar approach, exploring commonalities

and shared values, to come up with a similar set of principles,

redefinitions of environment, and sense of mission. This

process-oriented approach, rather than a consultant and

think-tank oriented approach, may cultivate a more cohesive

and enduring movement over the long run. •

III

One of the central points of Death of

Environmentalism was that the conventional

environmental movement made a critical error in focusing

on technical solutions while the right wing of the ideological

spectrum was busy winning over the public with cleverly

packaged ideas.68 The implication of this critique seems to

be that we too should have focused on ideas that would help

sustain support for environmental causes over the long haul.

In this respect, the authors’ criticism was not entirely fair.

Far right-wing ideology is different in one critical respect:

its central project is to shrink government and dismantle

health and environmental programs, not solve difficult

environmental problems.

C. Role Of Technocratic Solutions

Here, again, the experience of the environmental justice

movement may be helpful in illustrating the issue.

Environmental justice advocates burst onto the environmental

protection scene in the late 1980s, raising powerful justice

claims that centered on values of fairness and community

that speak directly to our sense of civic virtue.69 In other

words, they did exactly what the Death of Environmentalism

authors said was the critical omission of the environmental

movement: they spoke to deeper values. This approach paid

off, sort of. Community demonstrations shining a spotlight

on specific environmental injustices-for example, African

American communities targeted for the siting of hazardous

waste facilities-enjoyed media attention and garnered public

59

support.70 Environmental justice became a high profile issue

within a very short time, and it animated the same better

aspects of our collective self that are the legacy of the civil

rights movement. However, in spite of this support, there were

few sustained victories.

While the myriad reasons for many short-lived victories are

complex, this much can be said: the environmental justice

movement was largely comprised of grassroots initiatives

in poor communities that had relatively few technical

resources with which to address heavy pollution loads

from multiple sources.71 There was also the problem of

pinpointing risk with the necessary degree of certainty.72 So

although in many instances there was strong public support,

the thorny technical issues of pollution reduction and risk

elimination remained. These problems are genuinely hard and

require technical solutions, at least over the short term. There is

no escape from that fact.

Far from being a central failure of the conventional

environmental movement, the focus on the technicalities of

pollution control, risk, and resource management is perhaps

its greatest contribution.73 The creation of a regulatory

infrastructure that comprises a mix of legal proscriptions,

III

61

ofrenda(Al t e r for the spi r i t s )

scientific understandings, and engineering technologies

has addressed many domestic environmental problems

admirably. Instead of berating conventional environmental

organizations, perhaps we should thank them and ask them

to continue their valuable work. Instead of demanding that

one organization, or cluster of organizations, be all things, we

should move ahead in a coordinated alliance of grassroots,

national, and international groups to address climate change.

This will require not banishing the technocrats, but banishing

the entrenched notions of privilege that view conventional

environmental organizations as the only game in town-a view

that has an impact on the funding infrastructure that supports

progressive causes. The technicians are critically important,

but there is much more in the environmental project that has

to be supported and developed. •

III

163

mariposamonarca

(mona r ch bu t t e r f l y )

the spirits’ annual return

We’re back!

65

Most participants in the “death” debate agreed

that alliance building was key, but unfortunately

building alliances is far easier said than done. This was,

curiously, the least developed part of the ensuing

conversations, although arguably it is the most important.

What should be the ground rules of these new alliances and

collaborations? Can they be transformative or will they

simply replicate old forms of domination with a few new players?

This is another area where the lessons and insights from

the environmental justice movement are helpful. The

environmental justice movement is a very large, decentralized

constellation of local organizations, loosely organized

communities, and sometimes regional and national networks

of affiliate organizations.74 It is multi-issue, multi-racial,

multi-cultural, and increasingly multi-national. It spans

diverse ecosystems, from inner city enclaves to remote Native

American reservations. The conditions these communities face

are equally disparate, from concentrated animal feeding

operations to hazardous waste facilities, clusters of oil

D. Transformative Coalition Building

III

67refineries and chemical plants, fields of produce laced with

harmful pesticides, degraded forests and rangelands, and

lack of water and emergency services. Native Americans have

sovereignty and tribal governance issues that complicate their

campaigns. Yet, despite the diversity in cultural perspectives,

environmental issues faced, geography, and history, these

groups have managed to come together to execute a fairly

unified movement. To be sure, this project has not always

worked well. There have been ideological differences, as

well as the inevitable fracturing that is often the product of

over-sized egos and unskillful interactions-a condition that

affects all groups of humans coming together for broad goals.

Nevertheless, there are alliances that have remained stable

for years and continue to function fairly efficiently.

During the 1991 First People of Color Environmental

Leadership Summit, there was substantial thought given to

how these disparate groups would work together in the years

to come. A draft set of principles for working together was

discussed. These principles included core values, such as the

value of working from the ground up (instead of the top down),

recognizing traditional and indigenous forms of knowledge,

recognizing that impacted community members should speak

for themselves and be supported in developing leadership

within their communities, and in particular, leadership

IIIamong the youth.75 They recognized that while on-the-

ground activists had to set their own priorities, power had

to be shared at all levels.76 The participants also discussed

how learning about different cultural and political histories

was important in building respect and trust over the long

run. This would also serve to strengthen cross-cultural

communication skills and yield a culturally appropriate

process for this diverse group.77

As the environmental justice movement went forward

in the years to come, these principles proved difficult to

abide by, particularly given pressing issues that had to

be addressed quickly and decisively. In 1996, some

movement participants gathered together in Jemez, New

Mexico, and discussed principles for democratic organizing.

These “Jemez Principles” might also prove instructive to

the larger environmental community as it considers how

environmental and progressive communities might come

together in future years to address climate change. Some

of the principles were similar to those developed in 1991,

but a few more were added. Briefly, they are 1) the need

to be inclusive, 2) bottom-up organizing, 3) letting people

speak for themselves, 4) working together in solidarity and

unity, 5) building just relationships, and 6) a commitment

to self-transformation.78 The participants understood that

inclusiveness “may delay achievement of other important

goals [and] will require discussion, hardwork, patience, and

advance planning. It may involve conf lict, but through

this conf lict [the participants] can learn better ways of

working together.”79 As the “death” debates revealed, the

larger environmental community is significantly fractured

and it is likely that conflict is routinely avoided rather than

confronted. As a result, some groups became players

and some groups were marginalized. This did not serve

the environmental community, as all groups and their

constituencies have something to offer the effort. At this

critical juncture, all groups should think more precisely

about how coalitions can be built, particularly in a context

of unexamined race and class attitudes in the United States,

III69

unexamined privilege of those in developed countries,

and limited funding sources that generate unhealthy

competitiveness. As daunting as this task is, however, it is

necessary for effective and stable coalitions.

The first step in this process might be for the entire

environmental community-not just the conventional

environmental community-to meet for the specific purpose

of exploring possibilities for further collaboration. They may,

for example, work on a set of principles for working together

and discuss ways of def ining the “environment” and

framing environmental issues. While cognitive scientists

and think-tank ideas can be helpful, they should not

substitute for the type of “bottom-up” discussions that allow

III

all participants to be genuinely invested in the process. This

process would also allow conflicts to surface, which is a good

thing. Some conflicts are generated by differences in perspective

and ideology, by unhealthy attitudes, or by inequality

in position. Other conflicts may arise because there is a

divergence of interests in responses to climate disruption,

which should be recognized and accepted. Discussion of these

issues will be difficult, and everyone should make a sincere

commitment to be open tothem.80 The alternative-keeping

disagreement and conflict below the surface-is a corrosive

course that will inhibit progress. A bottom-up strategy will

prove more effective over the long run. •

Are you ready?

71

73

Conclusion

IV

Whether we view environmentalism as

failed, crippled, dead, or in the process of

transformation, there is an overriding imperative that

all of us agree upon-addressing climate change. This is an

issue that no one constituency owns. However, it should

be recognized that the arctic north, global south, and the

south within the north will be most affected by the disruption

that climate change will bring. Thus, how we approach

this imperative will matter, as not all will be situated equally

in this looming tragedy. We must resist the temptation to

respond to the urgency of climate disruption by creating an

energy infrastructure that will place new risks and impacts

on the back of vulnerable communities. Some of us will

have to let go of privileged positions and not purport to be

the exclusive voices for this issue. We can also take a tip from

nature and recognize that we are interdependent movements

and that diversity and cooperation are the ultimate keys to

survival. When we recognize the strengths and contributions

of sister progressive movements, adopt and adapt strategies,

and move forward together, we will have a much better

chance of reaching our collective goals.

IV75

-and the dance-

77

goes on.”

IV

As we can learn from el dia de los muertos, or the day of the

dead, above all, it is possible to recognize the urgency and

gravity of climate disruption while at the same time simply

refuse to take ourselves too seriously, regardless of which

environmental or progressive constituency we most identify

with. In other words, let’s approach our death, rebirth, and

diversity with a lighter touch. The struggle and the dance goes on.

“The struggle

Pan de Muerto

(Bread of the Dead)It’s sweet and here for a

limited time!

179

81

Works Sited

83

1 See, e.g., Carlos Miller, Indigenous People Wouldn't Let 'Day of the Dead' Die, http://www.occultcorpus.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3437 (last visited Apr. 13, 2008) (discussing el dia de los muertos and the way it is celebrated in Latino cultures and beyond).

2 See, e.g., Adam Werbach, Address at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco: Is Environmentalism Dead? (Dec. 8, 2004), available at http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/werbach-reprint/.

3 See Michael Shellenberger & Ted Nordhaus, The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World (2004), available at http://www.thebreakthrough.org/PDF/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf [hereinafter Death of Environmentalism].

4 Id. at 6.

5 I thank Professor Linda A. Malone for suggesting the use of the term "climate disruption." See Linda A. Malone, Marshall-Wythe Found. Professor of Law, College of William & Mary Marshall-Wythe School of Law, Presentation for the Environmental Law Section at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Law Schools: Responses to a Changing Climate: Developments in Law, Policy, and the Classroom (Jan. 5, 2008). The meeting program is available at http://www.aals.org/am2008/saturday/index.html.

6 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers 11 (2007), available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf [hereinafter IPCC Report] (noting that even within relatively high income areas, the poor, young children, and elderly will be particularly at risk). See generally Cong. Black Caucus Found., Inc., African Americans and Climate Change: An Unequal Burden 2 (2004), available at http://rprogress.org/publications/2004/CBCF_REPORT_F.pdf.

7 Death of Environmentalism, supra note 3, at 12.

8 Id. at 33.

9 Id. at 9.

10 See Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law 83-84 (2004).

11 Death of Environmentalism, supra note 3, at 8.

12 Id. at 17-18.

13 See Michael Shellenberger & Ted Nordhaus, Death Warmed Over, The Am. Prospect, Oct., 2005, at A29, A30-31.

14 Death of Environmentalism, supra note 3, at 19.

15 Id. at 20.

85

16 Id. at 19-20.

17 See id. at 29. See also Richard N. L. Andrews, Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves 256-59 (2nd ed. 2006) (describing the Reagan administration's deregulation initiative).

18 Death of Environmentalism, supra note 3, at 31.

19 Id. at 32. See generally Cato Institute, Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace, http://www.cato.org/about.php (last visited Apr. 13, 2008).

20 Death of Environmentalism, supra note 3, at 6.

21 Carl Pope, Response to 'The Death of Environmentalism': There is Something Different About Global Warming (2004), http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/messages/2004december_pope.asp (last visited Apr. 13, 2008).

22 Id.

23 Id.

24 Id.

25 See infra notes 29-45 and accompanying text.

26 Pope, supra note 21.

27 This was before the 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Pictures 2006), infra note 65 and accompanying text, and before the IPCC Report, supra note 6.

28 Pope, supra note 21. See generally Lazarus, supra note 10.

29 Michel Gelobter et al., The Soul of Environmentalism: Rediscovering Transformational Politics in the 21st Century 8-10 (2005), available at http://www.rprogress.org/soul/soul.pdf.

30 Id.; see Letter from environmental justice actors to a multitude of conventional environmental organizations (Mar. 6, 1990), in Environmental Justice: Law, Policy, and Regulation 21-22 (Clifford Rechtschaffen & Eileen Gauna eds., 2002) [hereinafter Law, Policy, and Regulation].

31 See Gelobter et al., supra note 29, at 11-15.

32 See id. at 16-19.

33 Id. at 17-19.

34 Id. at 20.

35 Id. at 21.

36 Id. at 21-22.

37 Id. at 22.

38 Id. at 24.

39 Id. at 26.

40 Id. at 24-25.

87

41 Id. at 26; see also Adrienne Maree Brown, Rainbow Warrior, http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/03/15/brown/ (last visited Apr. 13, 2008).

42 Ludovic Blain, Ain't I an Environmentalist?, http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/05/31/blain-death/index.html (last visited Apr. 13, 2008).

43 Vivian Chang & Manami Kano, Panel Surfing, http://www.grist.org/comments/dispatches/2005/03/04/chang/index.html (last visited Apr. 13, 2008).

44 Orson Aguilar, Why I Am Not an Environmentalist, http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/05/31/aguilar/index.html (last visited Apr. 13, 2008).

45 See, e.g., Amanda Griscom Little, Death Wish: An interview with authors of the controversial essay "The Death of Environmentalism," http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/little-doe/ (last visited Apr. 13, 2008).

46 Gelobter et al., supra note 29, at 8.

47 Michel Gelobter et al., Standing on Whose Shoulders?, http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/05/27/gelobter-soul/ (last visited Apr. 13, 2008).

48 Gelobter et al., supra note 29, at 8-9.

49 "Limousine liberal" is "a pejorative American and Canadian political term for a wealthy liberal or liberal who claims to have a deep concern for poverty in the United States or poverty in Canada, but doesn't actually engage with impoverished

individuals on a day to day basis." Wikipedia, Limousine liberal, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limousineliberal (last visited Apr. 13, 2008). See also Urban Dictionary.com, Limousine Liberal, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=limousine+liberal (last visited Apr. 13, 2008). A more recent iteration of this sentiment was expressed in a speech about global warming, in which the speaker referred to "those in the liberal elite who jet to environmental conferences in Gulfstream Fives and drive around in Hummers singing the praises of hybrids and bicycles . . . ." Senator Tom McClintock, Speech at the Western Conservative Political Action Conference (Oct. 12, 2007), available at http://www.carepublic.com/blog.html?blog_id=193&frompage=latestblog&domain=tom_mcclintock.

50 Death of Environmentalism, supra note 3, at 9.

51 See generally Law, Policy, and Regulation, supra note 30, at 3-26; Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement 19-33 (2001); Philip Weinberg, Equal Protection, in The law of environmental justice: theories and procedures to address disproportionate risks 3, 3-22 (Michael B. Gerrard ed., 1999).

52 Eileen Gauna, The Environmental Justice Misfit: Public Participation and the Paradigm Paradox, 17 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 3, 35-36 (1998).

53 Some scholars have argued that a narrow focus on environmental justice, without consideration of tribal

89

sovereignty and the federal trust responsibility, can undermine important goals and lead to a form of economic paternalism. Jana L. Walker et. al., A Closer Look at Environmental Injustice in Indian Country, 1 Seattle J. Soc. Just. 379, 390 (2002). The same cautionary note is applicable to efforts to address climate change, both by conventional environmentalists and environmental justice actors.

54 See Richard Toshiyuki Drury et al., Pollution Trading and Environmental Injustice: Los Angeles' Failed Experiment in Air Quality Policy, 9 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol'y F. 231, 234-35 (1999).

55 The first definition used was a reference to the environment as where people "live, work and play." Gauna, supra note 52, at 70. It has since been broadened. E.g., Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Environmental Justice & API Issues, http://www.apen4ej.org/issues_what.htm (last visited Apr. 13, 2008) (referring to "the environments where we live, work, play, learn and pray").

56 A reflection of this sentiment is prominent in the name of one of the major environmental justice networks, the Southwest Network for Environmental & Economic Justice, http://www.sneej.org/ (last visited Apr. 13, 2008). For more examples, see the websites of other prominent environmental justice networks: Asian Pacific Environmental Network, http://www.apen4ej.org/ (last visited Apr. 13, 2008) ("Uniting Asian and Pacific Islander communities for environmental and social justice."); Indigenous Environmental Network, http://www.enearth.org/ (last visited Apr. 13, 2008) ("A network of Indigenous Peoples empowering Indigenous Nations and communities towards sustainable livelihoods, demanding environmental justice and maintaining the Sacred Fire of our

traditions."); National Black Environmental Justice Network, http://www.nbejn.org/who.html (last visited Apr. 13, 2008) ("[A] national preventive health and environmental/economic justice network with affiliates in 33 states and the District of Columbia.").

57 See, e.g., Gelobter et al., supra note 29, at 22-23.

58 See Cong. Black Caucus Found., supra note 6, at 1; Robert Cordova et al., Climate Change in California: Health, Economic and Equity Impacts 1 (2006), available at http://\www.rprogress.org/publications/2006/CARB_ES_0306.pdf.

59 See Victor B. Flatt, Taking the Legislative Temperature: Which Federal Climate Change Legislative Proposal is "Best" (Part II), 102 N.W. Univ. L. Rev. Colloquy 123, 123 (2007), available at http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/colloquy/2007/32.

60 For an assessment of coal-fired power plants that are in various stages, from announcement through permitting and construction, see Erik Shuster, Nat'l Energy Tech. Lab., Tracking New Coal Fired Power Plants (2007), available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf.

61 See, e.g., National Black Environmental Justice Network, http://www.nbejn.org; see also Eileen Gauna, LNG Facility Siting and Environmental (In)Justice: Is it Time for a National Siting Scheme?, 2 Envtl. & Energy L. & Pol'y J. 85 (2007).

62 See The First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, Principles of Environmental Justice, in Law, Policy, and Regulation, supra note 30, at 22-24.

91

63 See generally Dr. James Lovelock & Dr. Lynn Margulis, The Gaia Hypothesis, http://www.mountainman.com.au/gaia.html (last visited Apr. 13, 2008).

64 See Robert Williams, Large Binocular Telescopes, Red Squirrel Pinatas, and Apache Sacred Mountains: Decolonizing Environmental Law in a Multicultural World, 96 W. Va. L. Rev. 1133, 1136 (1994).

65 An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Pictures 2006).

66 George Lakoff is the author of many books, including Don't Think of an Elephant, which addresses the framing of issues within political contexts. George Lakoff, Don't Think of an Elephant (2004).

67 See Law, Policy, and Regulation, supra note 30, at 21-24. See also First People of Color Leadership Summit, People of Color Environmental Justice "Principles of Working Together," Oct. 27, 1991, available at http://www.ejnet.org/ej/workingtogether.pdf [hereinafter First People of Color Leadership Summit]; Videotape: First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit Highlights (Comm'n for Racial Justice, United Church of Christ 1992) (on file with Tisch Library, Tufts University).

68 Death of Environmentalism, supra note 3, at 9-12.

69 See Law, Policy, and Regulation, supra note 30, at 3-5.

70 See id.

71 See id. at 3, 5, 13.

72 See id. at 87-105.

73 See generally Lazarus, supra note 10; Werbach, supra note 2; Gelobter et al., supra note 29, at 8-10.

74 See Envtl. Justice Res. Ctr., People of ColorEnvironmental Groups Directory (2000), available at http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/poc2000.htm.

75 See First People of Color Leadership Summit, supra note 67.

76 Id.

77 Id.

78 See Rubén Solís, Sw. Pub. Workers Union, Jemez Principles for Democratic Organizing (1997), available at http://www.ejnet.org/ej/jemez.pdf.

79 Id.

80 See, e.g., Werbach, supra note 2.

93

pen and ink and graphic design

Travis Daigle

digital photography taken in East Austin

Travis Daigle, AnthonyZubia Ali Diaz-Tello, Emily LaCroix

Issa Galvan, Lillian PesoliLexie Shook & Mia Carameros

195